+1 On Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 03:28 Neelesh Salian <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding). Thanks Steven. > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 18:23 John Zhuge <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 12:28 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 binding >>> >>> Thanks Steven for the change. Hopefully there is no downstream clients >>> building logic based on the error message. >>> >>> Yufei >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 12:22 PM Kevin Liu <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 binding >>>> >>>> Thanks Steven! >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 11:54 AM Daniel Weeks <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I followed up with Steven offline and with the updates I'm changing my >>>>> vote to a +1. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Steven! >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 12:49 PM Daniel Weeks <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> -1 (for now) >>>>>> >>>>>> Steven, I'm not sure we've had enough discussion on this and what >>>>>> we're actually trying to solve for. The PR looks like we're just >>>>>> updating >>>>>> the description, but there's really no functional change here. >>>>>> >>>>>> There's actually a more significant discrepancy in that the >>>>>> create/rename/register view can only return a ViewAlreadyExistsError even >>>>>> if it's a table and create/rename/register Table can only return a >>>>>> TableAlreadyExistsError even if it's a view. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think clarifying the description doesn't really address this issue >>>>>> and functionally we've strictly defined two specific return types that >>>>>> are >>>>>> aligned with their specific load routes, but identifier uniqueness spans >>>>>> multiple. >>>>>> >>>>>> I also don't know what else may collide (functions, indexes, etc.). >>>>>> Some of this might be engine specific. >>>>>> >>>>>> I just don't feel like this is the right way to address it (though I >>>>>> could be convinced otherwise if there something specific we need to solve >>>>>> in the near term). >>>>>> >>>>>> -Dan >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 11:09 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The REST spec currently defines six write operations that return a 409 >>>>>>> Conflict when an identifier already exists. However, the >>>>>>> descriptions of what constitutes a conflict are inconsistent: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Enforcing cross-type uniqueness (table or view): >>>>>>> - renameTable, renameView, registerView say: *"already exists >>>>>>> as a table or view"* >>>>>>> - Only enforcing within the same type (table or view only): >>>>>>> - createTable, registerTable, createView say: *"table already >>>>>>> exists"* / *"view already exists"* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd like to propose a vote on a small clarification in the REST spec >>>>>>> to apply the same wording of "*The identifier already* *exists as a >>>>>>> table or view*" across all 6 endpoints. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15691/changes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Steven >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> >> -- >> John Zhuge >> >
